Alexander Politi, director of the NATO Defense College Foundation, the only non-governmental research center recognized by the Alliance, has known the trade of strategic analysis for thirty years, reading the dynamics of global power in filigree, trying not to be distracted by mirages of glory , power and strength that surround him. Like others who have seen war and murderous violence up close, he knows that peace in the shadow of nuclear weapons is a vital necessity and not wishful thinking.
A graduate in Military History, a normalist, he is a professor of geopolitics, geoeconomics and intelligence at SIOI, the school that trains aspiring diplomats and foreign diplomats, and of similar subjects in other governmental and non-governmental institutes. He has worked with three defense ministers, and several gran commis of the government apparatus, serving as a political adviser to the NATO force in Kosovo.
In short, when Politi speaks of the need "to suspend the conflict because it risks not benefiting anyone", he does not do so because he is driven by "do-good" impulses or dubious political influence, but precisely because from a NATO perspective, the Cold War is won by the pairing deterrence-dialogue.
Dr. Politi, after the violent rocket bombings of Ukrainian cities by the Russians and the general horror they have caused, are we any closer to NATO involvement in the conflict?
“No, absolutely not. And simply because there is no matter for intervening on the basis of Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty. NATO enters the field only to protect an allied country; unfortunately, this is not the case with Ukraine, which remains a partner. It's tragic, but it's inherent in the treaty."
Let's recap the state of the fighting: Is Putin losing the war?
“Let's start with the Ukrainian offensive, a topic where unfortunately a lot is being embroidered. Putin suffered a series of severe reverses, but ultimately only 20% of the occupied territory was recovered. Chess for Putin is serious, but not decisive for now. So the war will continue until the big players in the international community decide to say: it's time to stop it. The bad news is that both Putin and Zelensky are still convinced that they must continue because war always stabilizes the power of those who wage it. The good news is that public opinion in many countries realizes that this war does not suit anyone.
Some warmongers use the bogeyman that a new Munich Agreement would be made if the war were suspended; that's simply not the case, so France and Britain handed Hitler the partition of Czechoslovakia in 1938, from which Poland and Hungary also profited. Today everyone knows that any annexation, by anyone, is illegal, short-lived and ephemeral.
What now attracts attention are the Ukrainian advances that have managed to free territories, and it is well known that Kiev aims at maximum effort before the mud and winter stop operations, but it is not said that it will then be able to dislodge troops well placed in defence. What happens if the effort stops? Is a recovery of the occupied territories all at once credible? There is a good chance that this is not the case and then a long term strategy is needed which is very difficult to execute in an ongoing war.
The negotiation will be complex and difficult and the subject, albeit thorny, is not lacking: the gradual reconstitution on more solid foundations of the independence, sovereignty and security of Ukraine (guaranteed by the Budapest protocol of 1994, also signed by the Russians); a new shared European security framework (which also means taking Russian security needs into account); the methods of reconstruction and the democratic protection of minorities. Clearly it is not possible to recompose a situation that has deteriorated within twenty years, but over time it is certainly possible to reconstruct the structures devastated by the war.
All of this requires us not to get caught up in warmongering temptations, which are present in certain political sectors of some Western capitals, but which require a sacrifice of Ukrainian lives, ignoring the most vital needs of this country".
How much hope does he have that will happen?
“I know that peace is easier to sabotage than to stop a war that is about to break out. I think it is important for a group of political actors to meet, but until they do, there can be no talk of hope or even optimism”.
The Putin-Biden meeting: will it take place?
“The meeting is closely linked to the political contingencies of the two leaders. It is useless for them to meet if the possibility of a ceasefire is torpedoed. So it's better that they don't meet, but that their teams work behind the scenes to find solutions. It's not easy, but I think there is now more awareness of the importance of stopping this war than before. And this awareness is transversal, there are more people who think so. Even inside Ukraine, otherwise the anti-negotiation decrees would be meaningless”.
Are you saying that the peace party is growing in America, Russia and Ukraine?
“It is not a party, and for now the word peace risks creating confusion. However, even in China, Germany, France, Italy, it is beginning to be understood that this war is not in the interest of the stability of the European continent. Which means respecting Ukrainian rights and borders, indeed, precisely because Europe is all made up of questionable borders, this need for stability must be put back in first place. And it's not about respecting the law at the tip of a pen, safeguarding borders is a vital need for Europe."
Do you expect popular uprisings in Russia?
"Apparently in Russia, Putin's control situation seems more solid."
Apparently…
“Apparently, sure. Because when the mobilization order is issued for 300 people and 100 to 120 disappear rapidly, we are faced with a vote of no confidence. And we shouldn't leave the Russians alone giving this vote of no confidence, it can't be secondary news. The Russians cannot demonstrate, they participate in elections that are not exactly unpredictable, but they are evading a draft that they consider unjust. This is an act of great courage."
And in Ukraine?
“When there is war, hatred only shows one side of the story. And therefore there are political forces that ride hate more than the future of the country. Zelensky doesn't have it easy. I don't forget that the president was elected on a negotiating platform with the Russians; therefore, I fully understand the drama of this person: political and human. The president was the face of the resistance when not even the Americans believed in it, but the aim of a war is not victory, it is the future of one's country in a concrete international context. Who but the Italians can understand the determination to reunify the country? However, when "O Roma o morte" is repeated, one forgets that twenty-one long years pass between the Republic of Rome and Porta Pia. The Garibaldians had the same ardor and courage as the Ukrainian soldiers, and a similar number of foreign volunteers, however, whether we like it or not, politics is the art of the possible”.
And yet it won't be for tomorrow...
“Tomorrow, however, is the first step on a journey that can be quite long, but which must be started and completed. I note that Finland has lost the equivalent of Holland in terms of territories since 1940 and has never regained it after two wars, one of them in collaboration with the Nazis. But Finland today is a rich, prosperous, democratic country, it is in Europe and will soon perhaps also join NATO. What is the future of Ukraine, if it bleeds out?”
Does this mean that Zelensky will have to say goodbye to the eastern regions to find peace again?
"No. I don't think so, I think the invasion was a dramatic coup by Putin, but I also think that all of this can be reabsorbed. Including Crimea. But it is patient work to heal the wounds in international coexistence and in the coexistence between two countries that have had a very similar, albeit distinct, history. In Soviet times they were considered brothers.”
Brothers like Cain and Abel one has to say…
"Yes. But we really would like Cain and Abel to both live and that Cain would understand that violence doesn't pay”.
It's possible?
"Of course yes. Are we forgetting that Europe was devastated by two world wars? That the French and the Germans, the French and the English have been at war with each other for centuries, thinking they are the heirs of an age-old hatred? It is normal that Russians and Ukrainians now do not see this alternative, but it is up to us to work to make them do. Let those who have wisdom put it in, as the adage goes; other than cheering like gladiators”.
Meanwhile the war continues. The Ukrainians have been promised other weapons, defenses and anti-aircraft missiles for example.
"We will see. It depends a lot on their use because a weapon is never completely offensive or defensive and what matters is to avoid war spirals out of control to suspend hostilities. We need caution."
An assessment of Europe.
“He should ask himself what is the geopolitical sense of what he does. I see many hard statements and little clarity on European interests.”
It's a strong criticism.
"No, it is an observation that derives from concrete choices and from the latest Strategic Compass, a document that needs to be redone".
What bothers you?
“The fact that we don't ask ourselves what the European interest is. Is there anyone who can define it? No, there is not. Or rather there would be, but it is not interpreted.”
Isn't defending the attacked in the European interest?
“It's a piece, but the others are missing. It is enough to look at the behavior of some States that take initiatives of their own business".
Think Germany I guess.
“No need to think about someone. However, I think that every time there is something decisive, each for himself and God for all. That's no good."
What are the top three priorities that Europe should have?
“Emerging from the economic crisis that is coming at breakneck speed. Stop the war. And begin to become credible in terms of conventional defense and deterrence. Talk about the European army makes me neither hot nor cold. Instead, we need to standardize armaments, i.e. acquire solid maneuvering skills, not dreams. If Europe and European countries manage to become credible within NATO, using it as an incubator, they will become truly credible, and will be able to act even when NATO cannot."
And the war? How do you stop it?
“We need to make the two contenders understand that victory on the field is illusory, that it could be achieved at too high a price, for both of us and for the world. And at the same time restore international legality which cannot be trampled on.”
We are very far…
“True, but what's the alternative? Do we want Ukraine to become like Bosnia-Herzegovina of the last century, that is, the country that caused the First World War to explode? It's not a great result for Ukraine or anyone else."
Do you think we have entered another phase of the war as French President Macron claims?
“If by this Macron means that the Ukrainians have regained the operational and strategic initiative, yes, it is true. But how much will he hold up to him?”
What if he meant that Russian behavior with carpet bombing brought us one step closer to our involvement in the war?
“All the more reason to stop her. This war is not good for anyone. That then it is necessary to restore everything that has been violated with respect to Ukrainian rights is absolutely true. But it's a journey."
What if someone told you that this position would actually favor Putin?
“I'd say he can't tell the real from the fake. The reconstruction of international legality in deterrence and dialogue never favors the designs of an aggressive leader".
